Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The AIH Transcript for February 28, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

HELEN MANN: Hello, I’m Helen Mann, sitting in for Carol Off.

KAREN GORDON: Good evening, I'm Karen Gordon, sitting in for Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

KG: Tonight:

HM: Excuse the mess. Justin Trudeau's government is in disarray after Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony yesterday — but Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson says it's really not as bad as she made it look.

KG: Fact and one figure in particular. The PM's former right-hand man, Gerald Butts, says he'll testify — and Deputy Conservative Leader Lisa Raitt tells us she'll have a lot of questions, if he does.

HM: Progress, or a work in progress. Critics say the feds' new Indigenous child welfare bill doesn't go far enough — but Assembly of First Nations Chief Perry Bellegarde says it will go a long way toward building a better country.

KG: He's running — but there's a hurdle. In the midst of his re-election campaign, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's in trouble — when his Attorney-General says he intends to indict the PM on charges of fraud, bribery, and breach of trust.

HM: A spotless bill of health. Max Seccia-Smith has two things to celebrate: the fact that he's no longer in isolation, after concerns he'd been exposed to measles; and the fact that he just turned one year old.

KG: And...mending fencers. Two people are mildly injured, and extremely embarrassed, after an argument over crab legs at an Alabama buffet turns into a duel — in which they used tongs as swords.

KG: "As It Happens", the Thursday edition. Radio that wishes they had talked it out — instead of speaking in tongs.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: SNC Lavalin: Fisheries Minister Wilkinson, SNC Lavalin: Deputy Conservative Leader Raitt, measles baby

SNC Lavalin: Fisheries Minister Wilkinson

Guest: Jonathan Wilkinson

KG: Gerald Butts says he wants the chance to tell his side of the story. The Prime Minister's former principal secretary has requested to appear before the House of Commons Justice Committee — the same committee that heard extraordinary testimony yesterday from Jody Wilson-Raybould, who accused several officials in the Prime Ministers' Office of inappropriately pressuring her to intervene in the criminal case against SNC Lavalin. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says his staff acted appropriately with the former Justice Minister and Attorney-General. He wasn't on the Hill today — so House Leader Bardish Chagger took the brunt of questions from Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer.

SOUNDCLIP

ANDREW SCHEER: It is completely disgusting that the Prime Minister does not have the fortitude to answer these questions. Want to talk about respect for the rules, Mr. Speaker? I'll try another one on the prime minister. Gerald Butts, his principle secretary, said to the former Attorney-General that, quote, the statute was set up by Harper, but that he does not like the law. So when the Liberals don't like the law, they try to break the law. The only job that the prime minister was interested in protecting was his own. Does he deny that Gerald Butts said those words? Yes or no.

GEOFF REGAN: The Honourable Government House Leader.

BARDISH CHAGGER: Mr. Speaker, we on this side will remain focused on Canadians. The former Attorney-General stated the prime minister told her it was her decision to make. The former Attorney-General stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. In the end, the former Attorney-General made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way. And the former Attorney-General confirmed that. We on this side will keep investing in Canadians. We on this side will keep fighting for you jobs, Mr. Speaker. That is what a government does. That is what a prime minister does. It's unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand that.

KG: Government House Leader Bardish Chagger responding to Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer in Question Period today. Jonathan Wilkinson is the Minister for Fisheries and Oceans. We reached him in Ottawa.

HM: Minister Wilkinson, do you believe your former cabinet colleague, Jody Wilson-Reybould.

JONATHAN WILKINSON: So I'm from Vancouver. And Jody is from Vancouver. And we've known each other for some time. And I would say that we are friends. And I certainly have a lot of respect for Jody's intellect and her character. But on this case, I do not agree with her characterisation and her interpretation of these events, no. You know with regard to important and often very complicated issues in governments, it is the responsibility of ministers of the Crown to seek out and explore every possible option. Regular communications between ministers and their staff is very normal. And I would say the quantity of interactions that Jody noted in her testimony yesterday is not at all unusual. In my mind. It is irresponsible if ministers the Crown do not canvass all of the options in areas where, for example, in this case, we're talking about 9,000 Canadian jobs. And I think Canadians would expect that we have canvassed all of the various options before we came ultimately to conclusions.

HM: Let me ask you though are you questioning her account of those events, or are you questioning her characterization of those events?

JW: I don't in any way challenge her recollection of events. And Jody is you know is very meticulous in terms of taking notes and those things. But I do certainly disagree with her characterization.

HM: Ms. Wilson-Reybould said that she received sustained consistent political pressure over four months from 11 people — including the Prime Minister. In her view this was inappropriate. You do not think that it was inappropriate for people to pressure the Attorney-General, the Minister of Justice, on a decision that could affect the government?

JW: I think it’s entirely appropriate for ministers of the Crown and their staff to engage in robust conversation. I can tell you we make very challenging and high pressure decisions all the time. And there are lots of times when our colleagues weigh in to ensure that we are aware of concerns that they have in the context of us making our decision. That's not forcing anybody to make any particular decision. It's ensuring that you actually have all the information that is required to make the best decision possible.

HM: Jody Wilson-Reybould said yesterday that Gerald Butts pressured her politically to find a solution to the SNC Lavalin affair. Ms. Wilson-Reybould said he told her there was, quote, no solution here that doesn't involve some interference. How do you react to that?

JW: Well, I think you have to actually look at the testimony in a slightly broader context. I mean we had a couple of different instances where asking her was to actually have a third party — potentially an ex-Supreme Court justice — simply look at the decision making process to ensure that it was appropriate. I have a hard time seeing how anybody views that is inappropriate pressure.

HM: This is after a time though when Ms. Wilson-Reybould said the decision had already been made and she was being pressured to revisit it.

JW: These kinds of decisions are always open to evolution over time as circumstances may change. And so people were looking to ensure that all of the information that was relevant to a decision were available and were discussed.

HM: Your government keeps saying this is about protecting SNC Lavalin jobs. But ms. Wilson Reyboulds says herself it wasn't the talk of jobs that bothered her. It was the mention of politics — that a Quebec election was coming up, that the prime minister is an MP of Quebec, which she says he told her himself. So is this about jobs, or is it as the opposition suggests about the prime minister keeping his job?

JW: Again, I have a hard time with the interpretation that Ms. Wilson-Reybould shared with respect to that. I mean we are all Members of Parliament. The expectation is not I don't think that I don't reflect the views of my constituents in North Vancouver simply because I'm a minister of the Crown. I still have a responsibility to ensure that those concerns are expressed. And Prime Minister Trudeau in the same way as member for Papineau is entirely within his rights to express the views of his constituents. And in the context of an issue like this where we're talking about thousands and thousands of jobs not just in Quebec but across the country, it is entirely reasonable that we are ensuring that we actually have all of that information. Ms. Wilson-Raybould confirmed that she was never directed to make a particular decision. It was in the context of ensuring that all of the relevant information was available. And Canadians should expect no less.

HM: Well, if Canadians should expect no less than getting all the relevant information, should the prime minister not appear before the justice committee?

JW: That is a discussion that the Justice Committee may want to have. And the Justice Committee will have to make a determination of who it is willing to or wants to hear from.

HM: If we want to get to the bottom of this, why should the RCMP not at least conduct an investigation?

JW: We have a Justice Committee that is actually undertaking a review. We have the Ethics Commissioner who is undertaking a review. Those are entirely appropriate mechanisms within the realm of Parliament to get to the bottom of this.

HM: As you know though, the Ethics Commissioner can only I mean the worst case scenario five hundred dollars a fine. The scope is very narrow. They are not able to look at this if it's a potentially criminal issue.

JW: Well, I think you need to be a little bit careful about that. I don't think anybody has suggested that.

HM: Mr. Scheer has.

JW: Including Ms. Wilson-reybould in her testimony. This is exactly what I mean about Mr. Scheer. I mean I think the overreach in the context of illegal activity and the Prime Minister should resign. I mean I think Mr. Scheer has damaged his own credibility as a serious person on this issue. Nobody has suggested illegality. And so you know to suggest that is just really, to be honest, the height of irresponsibility.

HM: Should Jody Wilson-Reybould remain a member of the Liberal caucus?

JW: Well, that's gonna be a decision both for Jody Wilson-Raybould and also for the prime minister.

HM: Are you comfortable sitting next to her in caucus?

JW: Well, I think just as the prime minister said this morning, I think you know I need to reflect on the testimony that she gave yesterday, and reflect on whether this is an appropriate thing for her to continue to do. And I have not at this stage made up my mind.

HM: Mr. Wilkinson, I appreciate you taking time to talk with us today.

JW: No problem. Thank you for the time.

HM: Bye-bye.

JW: All right. Bye.

KG: Jonathan Wilkinson is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We reached him in Ottawa.

SNC Lavalin: Deputy Conservative Leader Raitt

Guest: Lisa Raitt

KG: Earlier today, Gerald Butts, the Prime Minister's former principal secretary, requested to appear before the justice committee — the same one that heard Ms. Wilson-Raybould's explosive testimony yesterday. Lisa Raitt is the Deputy Leader for the Conservatives. We reached her in Toronto.

HM: Ms. Raitt, Gerald Butts says he wants to testify before the Justice Committee. What questions do you have for the prime minister's former advisor?

LISA RAITT: I think what I'd like to know is what his what his testimony would be about the dates and the chronology that Jody Wilson-Reybould went over yesterday. We started to get a chronology out of our first witness who is the Clerk of the Privy Council. We've got a very thorough one from Jody Wilson-Reybould yesterday. And if Mr. Butts were to appear — and I don’t think the committee has decided that yet. But if Mr. Butts were to appear, I'd like to follow along and find out what he said during those meetings, and whether or not he has any notes or text to corroborate.

HM: Right. Well, he was referred to, of course, by Jody Wilson-Reybould in that testimony as one of the 11 people she says pressured her to intervene in the SNC Lavalin case. She said notably that he told her they needed to find a solution on the matter. Do you think it's possible that he has contradictory material and evidence that he can present at the committee?

LR: Assuming that he is coming, what I would say is this: It’s important to get the facts of what was said and what was not said. And if he thinks that she has misquoted him, then he should come forward and let us know exactly what he did say.

HM: Given what she said, do you think what he did was inappropriate?

LR: If we were to believe her side only without having any other witness testimony, I do believe that the RCMP have something to take a look at. I think that they can take a look at whether or not there was attempted intimidation by any of them, indeed from the Prime Minister's Office from the prime minister on down to make the Attorney-General do something that she did not want to do as a justice actor in the system.

HM: Right, well your leader, of course, sent a letter to the RCMP, asking them to conduct an investigation. Ms. Wilson-Reybould said herself she doesn't believe that any laws were broken. It sounds like you disagree.

LR: Well, you know what's interesting? It's the same kind of situation. Politicians aren't supposed to be the ones who determine whether or not laws are broken. That's what happens when you have a separate judiciary. It may be her opinion that it wasn't broken. But given all the facts, maybe the RCMP will come to a different opinion when they take a look at the parts of the criminal code that we think apply.

HM: The Minister of Fisheries Jonathan Wilkinson told us that he feels these kinds of communications between staff and ministers are very normal. That's his actual words. Mr. Butts categorically denied putting pressure on Ms. Wilson Raybould. Obviously, the prime minister says he does not agree with her interpretation of events. Could it just be a matter of her having a different view, a different perspective on things than what the other liberals involved in this believe is pressure or undue pressure?

LR: Look, she characterized it yesterday. She said it was relentless, continuous pressure and interference, meant to be political in nature. She clarified it in the first 90 seconds of her opening. She said it was political interference. And she asked for them to stop several times along the way. She gave us a 40-minute presentation on every note that had to do with what was going on. So for somebody else to come in and say she misunderstood or deals with it in a different way I think is hopeful that this isn't as serious as it is. And they shouldn't get their hopes up because it is quite serious.

HM: There's been rather mixed reaction to this controversy in Quebec. And some of it has been people defending SNC Lavalin and the government in terms of the belief that they need to protect jobs. That's the line, of course, the Liberals are going with — protecting 9,000 jobs. Are you concerned about the loss of jobs if the company were to be convicted and lose the right to bid on big projects?

LR: Well, there's a lot of questions in that statement. But let me put it this way. I would never interfere with a decision made by the public prosecutor on whether or not to pursue a criminal prosecution if I felt that they were absolutely correct in law. Jody Wilson-Reybould felt that way after she did her due diligence, and she stood by it. As a result, they don't get one of these deferred prosecution agreements. And that's just the way it is.

HM: Last night, your leader Andrew Scheer called for the prime minister to resign immediately. Some critics have said that was overreach, that it was a bold demand, and you can't go anywhere from that point. Do you not want to hear from him first perhaps under oath before making a call like that?

LR: We've asked several times for the prime minister to testify. He has refused all of them. We’ve several questions in the House of Commons. He doesn't answer them. We have heard his narrative through his media availabilities — it's completely insufficient. And as a result, we have no other choice but number one ask for the RCMP to take a look at it. But number two, draw the assumption that what just Jody Wilson-Reybould said is exactly correct, and that there was political interference. If that's the case, then it shakes the foundations of our Constitution and our separation of powers. He is way over the line. And he doesn't deserve to be the prime minister any longer.

HM: The NDP, of course, is calling for a public inquiry. Do you see a point where your party would support that too?

LR: We support a public inquiry. We support anything that's going to be able to get us to the bottom of the truth. Canadians have a right to know what's going on. They're very engaged on this topic. They're horrified the way in which he's treated. I mean we had a Liberal MP today say that it's her dad that's pulling the strings. I mean look at that woman and how she comported herself yesterday for four-and-a-half hours. I didn't see her father sitting next to her quite frankly. So they're going to continue to spin and they're going to continue to smear her because they didn't like what she had to say. But she says she told the truth. And until the prime minister appears and tells us different, I'm going to have to go with what she said.

HM: All right. Ms. Raitt, thank you very much for talking to us.

LR: My pleasure. Thank you.

HM: Bye-bye.

KG: Lisa Raitt is the Deputy Leader for the Conservative Party. We reached her in Toronto. For more on this, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Hip-hop]

Measles baby

Guest: Stefania Seccia

KG: For Stefania Seccia, this week has been a cause for celebration. Her baby, one-year-old Max Seccia-Smith, was released from home quarantine, after possibly being exposed to measles. A measles scare would be upsetting for parents of any baby. But in Max's case, it was even more so. We reached Stefania Seccia in Burnaby, British Columbia.

HM: Ms. Seccia, how is Max today?

STEFANIA SECCIA: He's doing great. His remains in really great spirits, and he's doing really well after getting vaccinated Monday morning.

HM: Right. So how was he originally exposed to measles?

SS: So on February 15^th, I received a phone call from our local public health unit that Max had to be isolated because he was exposed to the measles virus after we visited B.C. Children's Hospital emergency room on February 1^st, where a confirmed case of measles was there around the same time.

HM: What went through your mind in that moment?

SS: I was terrified. It was not the call I was expecting. And just the day before, after reading about the measles outbreak, I had booked Max's vaccination appointment for just a couple days after his first birthday. And to receive that phone call, it was completely surreal. I kind of had to pick my jaw up off the floor.

HM: So he was exposed in this emergency room situation. What was he doing there?

SS: So our son has the cold sore virus, and we were worried the antiviral medication was making him throw up — it's a side effect of it. But he was also having a stomach virus at the same time. So we were very nervous about his about him dehydrating because when he was first born he was a premature baby — he was born a month early. And he was in the NICU for four days. He also had a feeding issue that led to needing surgery. And before the surgery, he had dehydrated significantly. And we had watched him kind of wither away before that surgery — which also makes him a high-risk baby. So we were also worried on top of this that if he did contract the measles, that he would face the worst of it. You know brain inflammation that can cause deafness, permanent brain damage, and potentially death.

HM: What kind of detail were you given in that call about the nature of this exposure?

SS: Yeah, so we were told that you know measles is extremely contagious. It's an airborne virus that can last in the air and on surfaces for up to two hours after an infected person has left. And that if Max did contract it, that the best case is to stay home and ride it out because it is so contagious. And he would be a risk to others.

HM: So during this one week period where you had to keep Max under quarantine, what was it like for you each day as they ticked past?

SS: Yeah, well that week that we spent — especially on his birthday — was really hard. You know watching on the edge of our seat, constantly taking his temperature every time he coughed, or rubbed his eyes, or you know we were just like oh my is this is this the moment? You know is this it. And we are so lucky to have gotten through that week, and that our son didn't contract the measles. Not even just for himself — for his own sake — but for the other people he could have exposed the virus to in the two weeks we didn't know, and that he was out and about at libraries, malls, in the park.

HM: Maybe his birthday presents for you not getting that measles.

SS: Yeah, not the birthday present we were expecting. But definitely appreciate how lucky we are.

HM: So you actually marked his birthday during that week. What did you do?

SS: Because he had to stay in isolation, it was just my husband and I. And we have a little sliding glass door in the back. And two of his cousins and one of his aunts came to that door — a sealed door, of course — and they sang Happy Birthday through it. And that was kind of the closest thing to sharing it with family that we could do. But we're gonna make up for it this weekend. We're going to have a really big party with friends and family to just celebrate Max making it to this point safely.

HM: You know the father of the children at the centre of this measles outbreak in B.C. has spoken publicly. He spoke with CBC News about why he hesitated to vaccinate his three kids. He said he distrusted the science at the time when they were younger. And that he is full of regret about that now — and getting their shots. But what do you want to tell parents who may still think the way he used to think?

SS: So the father you're speaking of, Emmanuel Bilodeau, he is actually the reason why we came forward with Max's story. He came forward to the media right as we basically got that phone call from our public health nurse informing us of Max's exposure. And it was linked to his children or to his case rather. And when we found out that the reason why he didn't get his children vaccinated was because of that debunked study linking it to autism, and that he took his kids to Vietnam — which you are recommended by pretty much every health authority in existence that when you going to Vietnam you should get the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine. So he actually had two opportunities to vaccinate his children. What I would say to parents who are perhaps on the fence, I am calling on you to challenge your beliefs right now. Seek out credible, peer-reviewed information. I'm talking our health care authorities. In British Columbia, its Health Link BC website, World Health Organization, Center for Disease Control. And. It drives me crazy because when I hear anti-vaxxers talk, they're saying well my kids are vaccinated, they're fine. But the only reason why they're fine is because the rest of us are taking responsibility and getting vaccinated. The second more and more people aren't getting vaccinated these are the places we're seeing the outbreaks occur. And our situation is a perfect example of that.

HM: You sound pretty impassioned over this. Are you angry about what happened?

SS: I was very angry, and I still am just because I'm still hearing the same rhetoric you know about vaccines. You know it's my choice when we talk about mandatory. And when I hear that, I just want to say you know where was Max's choice? Where was our choice in this situation? The choice should be to do the right thing, to make the best decision, and to listen to the best possible advice — which is to vaccinate our kids to some of the most deadliest viruses out there.

HM: I'm glad to hear Max is in the clear. A belated Happy Birthday to him.

SS: Thank you so much. Yeah, we're very, very happy to be at this point.

HM: Yeah, I can imagine. Look, thank you so much for speaking with us. We appreciate it.

SS: Thank you.

HM: Ok, Bye-bye.

SS: Bye.

KG: Stefania Seccia's son Max was released from measles quarantine earlier this week. We reached Ms. Seccia in Burnaby, BC.

[Music: World music]

Crab legs fight

KG: Fencing has a reputation for being kind of snobby and exclusive. Mostly because it's so expensive — you have to buy the fancy white outfit, join a club, hire a coach, and constantly replace your broken blades. If only there were some way to make it cheaper and more accessible. Well, two visionaries in Huntsville, Alabama, may have figured out a way. But you know how visionaries are treated: they're being punished for their inventive thinking — although, that may be because they hit on a solution to the fencing problem while hitting each other at a buffet. Huntsville police officer Gerald Johnson saw the whole thing. Last week, he stopped at the Meteor Buffet for lunch. And in an interview with WHNT-TV in Huntsville, Officer Johnson described the tension that preceded the dramatic conflict.

SOUNDCLIP

GERALD JOHNSON: They had been waiting there for the crab legs for a good 10-plus minutes — maybe 15. So when they finally came out, it’s very heated — especially if someone’s taken more that their fair share.

KG: Now you understand why things were so tense: it was the wait for crab legs. And in the pandemonium after they finally landed on the steam table, Officer Johnson heard a surprising sound: the clash of tongs. Two customers were having an impromptu fencing match, at the buffet. With tongs. Those customers are now facing charges, and have both admitted they got a little out of hand vis-a-vis the crab legs. And, of course, we don't support any kind of violence, particularly at a smorgasbord. But let's acknowledge their innovation here. No fancy white outfits, no fencing club membership, no expensive equipment. They just fenced with two pairs of tongs. Total cost: 10 dollars and 58 cents American — the cost of the buffet. I'm just saying it could really make fencing a lot cheaper and a lot more popular. Although it might be a tough sell for the people who run buffets. Right now, their restaurants serve food. And instead of just doing that one thing, they'd have to agree to serve a duel purpose.

[Music: Ambient]

Part two: Indigenous child welfare, Netanyahu indictment

Indigenous child welfare

Guest: Perry Bellegarde

KG: It's a landmark bill that's supposed to change the way Indigenous children in the welfare system are cared for. Today, Indigenous Services Minister Seamus O'Regan unveiled new legislation that would hand over the child welfare system to First Nations, Metis, and Inuit governments. It's an effort to tackle the record high number of Indigenous children in foster care. Perry Bellegarde is the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. We reached him in Ottawa.

HM: Chief Bellegarde, what does this legislation mean for Indigenous children in Canada?

PERRY BELLEGARDE: Basically, what this legislation means for First Nations children that it's all about the children. It’s about their safety, their security, their well-being, and their future.

HM: This is the first bill of its kind in Canada. It hands over control of the child welfare system to Indigenous governments. What will its implementation actually look like in those communities?

PB: Well, one thing, it doesn't really hand over control. I've said that First Nations have the inherent right to self-government, self-determination. And like when when I say it will recognize and affirm First Nations control and jurisdiction over their children. So it won't handover anything, but it’s gonna recognize First Nations jurisdiction when they set up their own First Nations law. And that's the first point. And what it'll do. It will make sure that the provinces and the territorial governments are called to come to the table to work this out regarding jurisdiction. And work in partnership and collaboration with First Nations governments.

HM: So it's a co-operative approach, rather than then giving control over the children's welfare systems to those communities?

PB: I view it as a co-operative approach, no question. You know we've got to collaborate and work together. We've dealt with the on-reserve system — the Indian child the family service system — where there was racism and discrimination because there was a lack of financial resources to have the same kind of services and programs on the on-reserve Child and Family Service system. And I just simply referred to the four decisions from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which we launched ten-twelve years ago as well, to show that there is discrimination. So that resulted in those four binding decisions from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, and a unanimous vote in the House of Commons to make sure that there's adequate financial resources to meet the needs of the children and the on-reserve system. This legislation deals with the off-reserve system. Because we have 40,000 children in foster care across Canada, and this needs to be dealt with. The two systems have to cooperate, they've got to work together, they've got to communicate. You have to have a more of a focus on prevention versus apprehension. And so it's it really is a collaborative approach. And this is the first of kind in Canada. And I would encourage all levels of government federal, provincial, territorial, and First Nations to really collaborate and embrace the cooperative nature of this because it's all about the children, and improving lives and providing hope for a brighter future for them.

HM: This legislation was developed in conjunction with the various Indigenous groups. Do you think it achieves what you hope? Did you get what you wanted from it?

PB: We always say nothing is ever perfect. We did get you know First Nations jurisdiction in terms of recognition. We did get the whole point about having the children focused on so that they stay with their families. You know this is introduced for first reading. It goes along its legislative process journey. If it's not perfect by any means, this can be improved as well as with the legislative drafting process. And that's what I encourage people that will say oh, it's not strong enough in this area. Well, let's find the recommendations to improve it and make it better, but make sure we do it in a timely manner because June is coming. And this this House will rise. And if we don't achieve royal assent with this, my fear is we'll have missed a huge opportunity to bring about transformative change in the child welfare system across Canada to ensure that these children have a bright future.

HM: A key part of the legislation is focused on keeping families together — keeping these kids in their communities and around their culture as you've mentioned. But aren't there challenges to achieving that?

PB: There are challenges in achieving that as well. So that's why we stress keeping the children with safe, loving, caring families. Well, maybe the mothers may have addictions or some issues — some health challenges. Well, they have a very healthy, loving, caring auntie, or uncle, or a cousin, or their grandmother, or grandparent. It's all about keeping them with their families while the family unit gets the help they need to become healthy. So there are going to be issues and challenges regarding capacity. But I think with the commitment from all levels of government and all levels of leadership, I think very important ground can be made. I think very important overhauling to the system that's not working can be made. And again, it's all about improving a system that's not working for the children.

HM: If there are cases in which these children cannot stay in their own communities, what are the options?

PB: Well, again, if there are cases where children cannot stay, I think they again, you keep going around to the healthy uncle, the healthy auntie, the healthy grandparents. And again, we don't want to reward apprehension. We ought to start focusing on prevention. And that's part of the overhauling of the system.

HM: There have been — there are — critics, including the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. They say the legislation doesn't go far enough in terms of the actual funding and recognizing Indigenous jurisdiction over child welfare, as opposed to this cooperative effort. What do you say to that?

PB: Well, we want to respect what the provinces and provincial Indian organizations, Indigenous organizations are doing across Canada. I think the funding piece can always be improved upon. And we want to ensure that there are sufficient fiscal resources to make sure that this overhauling of the system can happen a very effective and efficient way. So you need adequate resources to do that. On the jurisdiction piece, well again, you can look at the wording. It's First Nations law, and I've said this to the chiefs. If you don't want federal laws to apply or provincial laws to apply, create your own laws and occupy the field. And so First Nations jurisdiction over child and family services acts can be developed — whether it be at the First Nations level, the band council level, whether it be by a treaty area level or a regional First Nations level. It can happen. And there's some strong wording in the act that reflects that and says that that First Nations law will be paramount.

HM: Chief Bellegarde, thanks for taking time to talk to us.

PB: Thanks for the opportunity.

HM: Okay, bye-bye.

PB: Bye.

KG: Perry Bellegarde is the Assembly of First Nations National Chief. He was in Ottawa.

[Music: Ambient]

Netanyahu indictment

Guest: Dahlia Scheindlin

KG: Isreali Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be facing more than just his poltical opponents in the country's upcoming elections. Today, it was announced that the country's attorney-general intends to indict Mr. Netanyahu on charges of fraud, bribery, and breach of trust. He's accused of giving political favors to business leaders in return for lavish gifts, and striking deals with media groups in exchange for favorable news coverage. Mr. Netanyahu has denied the charges. Dahlia Scheindlin is a political consultant and commentator who's worked on a number of Israeli election campaigns — but never for Mr. Netanyahu's Likud party. We reached her in Tel Aviv.

HM: Ms. Scheindlin, the Israeli election is less than six weeks away. Could these indictments come at a worse time for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

DAHLIA SCHEINDLIN: Well, that's interesting that you ask it that way because it sounds an awful lot like what the prime minister himself said in his press conference today, when he said this timing cannot possibly be a coincidence. There is another way to look at it, which is that he himself was aware of the pace of the investigation, which had been going on for a couple of years already. And that it was expected that the investigations would reach this point of a recommendation for indictment around now. And that could be the reason the prime minister actually decided to dissolve the government and take Israel into an election cycle earlier than scheduled. So there's two ways of looking at this. And I think the way Israelis see it, it really depends on which side of the political map you're on.

HM: Well, as a matter of fact, it's not the first time that Netanyahu has described this as a witch hunt, something carried out by the left, by the media. He says that favours the left wing. How is that being received?

DS: Well, once again, this is a very, very divided country. And so you know Netanyahu had a very stable base of support in surveys throughout pretty much the entire four years since the last election — about 25 per cent of people support him in terms of voting for Likud. And there is another roughly f41 to 45 per cent of the electorate who generally supports his prime ministership even if they're not voting for him. And they essentially agree with this perspective. They say you know the media is dominated by the left. The Attorney-General and the justice system has come under the influence of these left wing activists. They essentially agree with him. Of course, anybody who is not on that side of the political map, which is generally the right-wingers and Likud supporters, thinks that that is absolutely a mischaracterization. And just the prime minister panicking and stopping at nothing to try to defend himself.

HM: Now, these are very serious charges. They're involving three cases — fraud, bribery, and breach of trust charges involved here. Can you give us a bit of what he is alleged to have done?

DS: Yeah, well there's three different cases. And so they're all a little bit different, but what two of them have in common is Netanyahu's you know you might call it an obsession with receiving favourable coverage in the press. He is a person who believes the media can basically influence anything. And so two of the cases involve him speaking directly with either you know the top ownership level, management, or actually the publisher of very high-circulating an influential news outlets. One is a major news portal with an accompanying television studio. And the other is very high-circulating daily newspaper. And both of those involve him either sort of negotiating with the publisher in the case of the newspaper for a quid-pro-quo — for favourable coverage in return for Netanyahu trying to damage the prospects of a competitor paper. And the more serious one — the one that involved the case of actual fraud — is the case of a major telecoms company that also owns this major news portal. And there he is accused of actually helping to advance a favourable regulatory environment for that major telecoms company — including while he himself, Netanyahu, was also serving as communications minister in addition to prime minister.

HM: Is there any evidence that he actually got that positive coverage?

DS: Well, this is, of course, a source of major debate. The prime minister himself says how can they possibly accuse me of this? This news outlet is an extreme left wing news outlet — which, of course, you know doesn't make that much sense considering it's a very mainstream, very influential news outlet, and the vast majority of Israelis are not even left wing — let alone extreme left wing. There are also senior level journalists from that news outlet who have said that they witnessed and experienced themselves Netanyahu's attempt to interfere at the management level. That would then filter down to pressuring them to give favourable coverage.

HM: Doesn't one of the cases involve an allegation that Mr. Netanyahu and his wife took gifts, including some pretty expensive jewelry?

DS: Yeah, that is the third case that we haven't discussed yet. And it's not so much directly related to media coverage. It's you know a wealthy businessman who is you know close associate of Netanyahu. And basically wanted various forms of political favours, but not related directly to media. And in return, this businessman is accused of giving him lots of gifts. And this is what we call the champagne and cigar case — including possibly jewelry. And the numbers add up. And it's true that Israeli society is you know is really debating those numbers very heavily right now. And the numbers seem to add up to about nearly half a million shekel. And you can do the calculation that's about three-point-seven shekels to the to the U.S. dollar. So we're talking at 125-135 thousand dollars.

HM: So how are other political parties responding to all of this?

DS: Well, obviously, I mean they're saying what they've been saying for a long time, which is that he is you know corrupt, self-serving, that he is eroding the foundations of democracy and freedom of press, and you know that he has become sort of drunk on his own power and that it's time to replace him.

HM: If he were to be indicted and were to be found guilty, could Benjamin Netanyahu be sent to jail or prison?

DS: If he is found guilty, then you know the legal punishments will have to be determined. I don't know that actually carries a prison sentence for these things. But as we've seen in the past, Ehud Olmert — the previous prime minister in 2008 — was sent to prison for various forms of corruption that he was eventually indicted for and convicted on and then went to prison. He served his prison time and now he's out. You know we'd have to see the full extent of the indictment until we know what the actual sentencing could be. But it's certainly happened in the past.

HM: It is going to be quite the election cycle in your country.

DS: It always is.

HM: All right. Ms. Scheindlin, thank you so much for filling us in.

DS: Thank you.

HM: All right, bye-bye.

DS: Bye-bye

KG: Dahlia Scheindlin is a political consultant and commentator. We reached her in Tel-Aviv.

[Music: Piano]

FOA: Andre Previn obit

KG: Andre Previn's musical career got off to a rocky start. The ambitious pianist was still a teenager when he landed a job improvising live scores to silent films. The theatre would switch between Biblical epics and reels of the Roaring '20s — often without warning. As Mr. Previn recalled to NPR in 1991: "[One show] we came out of a biblical time and back into people Charlestoning their life away ... And so I started playing 'Tiger Rag'. I heard a commotion in the audience, and the manager was storming down the aisle. I was playing 'Tiger Rag' to the Crucifixion, which was a bad choice." Unquote. That's also when the manager made a bad choice — and kicked the absent-minded, albeit versatile, teenager to the curb. Enter MGM. At sixteen, the film studio giant hired Mr. Previn. He would go on to compose and arrange music for films like "My Fair Lady," "Porgy and Bess," and "Gigi". The legendary composer and conductor died today. He was 89 years old. Andre Previn's success in the film world was just the first in a string of accomplishments for the budding virtuoso. He was a master of reinvention: as soon as Mr. Previn made a name for himself in one world, he would pivot to the next. Whether it was jazz, popular, or classical music — before or behind the conductor's baton — wherever he put his talent to work, Mr. Previn did it with ease. And he never compromised his artistic integrity along the way. Mr. Previn's list of honours includes four Oscars, ten Grammy Awards across seven different categories, and the Glenn Gould Prize, just to name a few. From 2011, here's Mr. Previn speaking to CBC "Saturday Afternoon at the Opera" host Bill Richardson about his love of composing and how it differs from conducting.

SOUNDCLIP

ANDRE PREVIN: If you're composing, you are really responsible for every note played by everybody. And when you're conducting or playing, you're only responsible for interpreting or reinterpreting the notes that have been put down for you. So it's a completely different ballgame altogether. But I do like composing very much, and I don't want to give it up.

BILL RICHARDSON: Well good, you must not. There's been a whole bunch of work that's come out just recently.

AP: In the last maybe three years, I've written more than I wrote in the 10 years before that. I can't explain that to you. It’s just that I do love to work. See, the great thing about composing is you don't have to travel to do it. It's just that wherever I am, if I've got some paper on a pencil, I can compose. And I can do it at home. I can do it at the hotel. I can do it in an airplane — wherever. That is a great luxury.

BR: Do you always compose without reference to the keyboard?

AP: No, not always. I was very pleased when I saw about all the people that do use a piano because I was feeling that I was cheating. But I don't use the piano very much. But when I get a long stretch done, I will go and play it through and see if I still like it.

BR: I wonder if the work you did in Hollywood for all those years — all that rapid-fire arranging that you were doing and writing on demand — did that enhance your fluency do you think, or was the fluency already there?

AP: Well, it certainly enhanced it. I mean I learned how to how to write and compose and orchestrate with much more speed than I used to. And then you have to, of course, add to the speed of some kind of thought as to what it is you're writing. Don't forget that in the picture business, all of my colleagues and I we used to orchestrate and compose and whatever, but according to somebody else's plan. But it did help me a lot in terms of fluency, yes.

BR: Well, and perhaps if you’re writing for the movies and you have to get something done, then you get something done. So it must prepare you in a certain way for just deadline?

AP: Oh, deadline is the most important word in the language. I mean there two sentences. One is when is this due? And the other is room service, please. I mean those are the two things.

BR: How about where is the check?

AP: That you need to know. Yeah, well, there used to be an old joke in Hollywood and the music departments and they said do you want this good or do you want it by Wednesday? And there was something to that because we all had to write as quickly as possible to get it done.

KG: That was Andre Previn in conversation with Bill Richardson on CBC's "Saturday Afternoon at the Opera" in 2011. Earlier this morning, Mr. Previn died. He was 89.

[Music: Ambient]

Part three: Trump-Kim summit, Kenya fires

UN Gaza report

KG: The United Nations has released a damming report on the Israeli military response to protests at the Gaza border last year. The UN Human Rights Council investigation says snipers intentionally fired on civilians -- including on children and people with disabilities -- and may have committed war crimes. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the report -- saying it was motivated by a, quote, "obsessive hatred of Israel." Unquote. Here is Commissioner Sara Hossain speaking about some of the investigation's findings.

SOUNDCLIP

SARA HOSSAIN: We found that 189 Palestinians were killed; 183 of them with live ammunition. And this included children people with disabilities, journalists, and paramedics. We also found that 6,106 were injured by Israeli snipers shooting at protesters with live ammunition. A total of 35 children, according to our findings, were killed during this period. According to our verified data, 60 per cent of them were killed with gunshots to the head. They included a 14-year-old girl, who was standing 100 metres from the separation fence. As for people with disabilities, we found that one person — a double amputee — was shot and killed as he sat in his wheelchair. On two separate days, two people visibly walking on crutches were shot in the head. They were killed. We're clear there is no justification for the killing of children and persons with disabilities who pose no imminent threat to life or serious injury to those around them. In addition to these findings, we also found that four Israeli soldiers were injured during the demonstrations. We found in one incident in North Gaza on the 14th of May. There may have been persons who were involved in direct participation in hostilities. In another incident in central Gaza on the 12th of October, we found that there may have been an imminent threat to life or serious injury to the Israeli security forces. But with the exception of these two incidents, we found reasonable grounds to believe that in every other case the Israeli security forces use of live ammunition against demonstrators was unlawful.

KG: That was Sara Hossain — a member of a UN panel that investigated killings by Israel during protests at the Gaza border last year.

[Music: Ambient]

Trump-Kim summit

Guest: Abraham Kim

KG: In Washington this past weekend, U.S. President Donald Trump said, quote, "...we're going to have, I think, a very interesting two-and-a-half days in Vietnam." Unquote. Well, it was probably interesting. But he was wrong about the amount of time. Today, the second summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un in Hanoi ended early — and without a deal.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: Basically, they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn't do that. They were willing to de-nuke large portion of the areas that we wanted, but we couldn't give up all of the sanctions for that. So we continue to work, and we'll see. But we had to walk away from that particular suggestion. We had to walk away from that.

REPORTER: Will all the sanctions that are currently in existence remain, sir?

DT: They’re in place. You know I was watching as a lot of your folks over the weeks have said oh, we've given up. We haven't given up anything. And frankly, I think we'll end up being very good friends with Chairman Kim and with North Korea. I think they have tremendous potential. I've been telling everybody they have tremendous potential, unbelievable potential. But we're going to see. But it was about sanctions. I mean they wanted sanctions lifted. But they weren't willing to do an area that we wanted. They were willing to give us areas, but not the ones we wanted.

KG: That's U.S. President Donald Trump on why he could not reach a deal with Kim Jong-Un on North Korea abandoning its nuclear weapons. The President was not willing to lift sanctions unless Kim agreed to completely shut down all nuclear weapons programs — which, apparently, the Supreme Leader would not do. Abraham Kim is head of the Council of Korean Americans. We reached him in Washington.

HM: Mr. Kim, would you go so far as to call this meeting a complete bust?

ABRAHAM KIM: I would not go as far as saying it's a complete bust. I think there is still hope in negotiations happening after this. But it is a disappointment that we did not reach a an agreement toward a clear roadmap toward denuclearization and reducing peace on the Korean Peninsula.

HM: What gives you hope that negotiations can move forward?

AK: I think there was a lot of preparation for the summit. As you look back since the last summit in Singapore, there had been a number of meetings and discussions occurring between the United States and North Korea — as well as South Korea and North Korea. And so I think there was a lot of work being done. And also, there was as President Trump indicated, there was opportunity for further discussions moving forward. So we are hopeful, and yet disappointed that we had not moved forward in terms of reaching a solid agreement at this time.

HM: So who or what do you think is to blame for the fact that the two sides could not come to further agreement?

AK: Well, I think, first of all, denuclearization. We've been dealing with this issue for a couple of decades now. So it is a very difficult and complex issue. And the stakes are very high. In particular, North Korea is in a better position than it was say 10-15 years ago. It has nuclear weapons, it has deliverables, so the cost in which to denuclearize is much higher for the international community. And President Trump and the international community will see nothing short of denuclearization. So it’s a large gap to fill. So I think both sides are negotiating hard. And I think to achieve this, it will take time and diplomacy is hard. And sometimes we do need to walk away from the table to get people to regroup and reconsider their position and look for other areas of compromise.

HM: Clearly, the North Koreans thought that they would get more concessions than they did when it came to the question of lifting sanctions. Do you think that President Trump was right to walk away, given the limits that they were willing to put on what they were willing to give up?

AK: Yes, I think President Trump did the right thing to walk away from a bad deal. I think our leverage is the sanctions, and our ability to put pressure on North Korea. And I think the North Koreans have to understand that these pressures will not be lifted until they are held accountable, and they move in a substantive way toward democratization. And that was made clear from the beginning. And so I think the worst case scenario would have been for the United States to give much more concession. But not holding the North Koreans fully responsible in terms of setting out a clear pathway to how they were going to move toward demobilization, which includes giving up their delivery systems and dismantling Yongbyon and all the other related nuclear weapons programs.

HM: But you know it seems that the regime sees that nuclear program as its way of getting any kind of attention from the rest of the world. It seems to be the thing that they hang on to to feel like their power will be assured. Is it unrealistic to think this has to be all-or-nothing when it comes to denuclearization?

AK: You're absolutely right. For North Korea, this is the absolute important leverage that they have to not only draw the attention of the international community, but also to get economic development support and humanitarian support moving forward. Kim Jong-un — Chairman Kim — made it very clear that economic development for his impoverished country is an absolute priority. And he sees this nuclear weapon as a means to get international community to further engage with his country. And so he’s demanding that sanctions are lifted first before these are completely denuclearized. So you know we don't anticipate this happening in the short term. But what we were hoping for was a roadmap of gradual milestone achievements as things were given up, things are slowly dismantled and destroyed in terms of the North Korean nuclear weapon — in return for certain kinds of sanctions to be lifted as well as certain political peace efforts are moving forward and confidence-building measures are also implemented. And so what I personally was hoping for was some kind of roadmap of moving forward these conversations toward the ultimate goal of denuclearization, and furthering relations between the United States and North Korea.

HM: What's at stake for you and other Koreans and people of Korean descent who live abroad — especially given so many people have connections to families that have been torn apart?

AK: Ultimately, our interest is to have peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. As you rightly indicated, the Korean community around the world have many families on the peninsula. And we would ultimately like to see progress in North-South dialogue as well as strengthening of relationships and the opportunity for Koreans abroad to travel to North Korea. Because many — especially here in the United States — do have family still living in North Korea that were separated 70 years ago by the Korean War. But as you can imagine, those people many of them are quickly dying. And so that window of opportunity to meet with these divided families that many of our Koreans have not seen their relatives over these years is closing. And so our ultimate interest is to see peace and stability on the peninsula, and the opportunity to someday go into North Korea and then reunite those families.

HM: All right. Mr. Kim, I appreciate you speaking with us. Thank you so much.

AK: Great. Thank you. Thanks for your time. All right, bye-bye.

HM: Bye-bye.

KG: Abraham Kim is the executive director of the Council of Korean Americans. We reached him in Washington.

[Music: Ambient]

Jackson doc

KG: In the new HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, which airs this Sunday, Wade Robson and James Safechuk claim that Michael Jackson sexually abused them for years. In an interview that aired earlier today, the two men spoke with "CBS This Morning" co-host Gayle King.

SOUNDCLIP

WADE ROBSON: Again, the feeling was out of all the kids in the world, here I am. And Michael chose me. And he also told me that you know I've never done this with anybody else. So that was more too.

GAYLE KING: Wow. I'm very special.

WR: Right. He chooses me, and he loves me.

GK: James, you're nodding in agreement to what he's saying.

JAMES SAFECHUK: Yeah, I mean that's all the same. You know he did the same thing to me as well.

GK: You think there are other boys out there, Wade?

WR: Yeah, I believe there are many other boys that Michael abused. I find it hard to believe that he had boys around for any other reason than to sexually abuse them.

KG: The Jackson family and estate deny these claims, and have cast doubt on whether Wade Robson and James Safechuk would have come forward with these allegations if Michael Jackson was still alive. Mr. Robson previously denied the abuse, and testified in Mr. Jackson's favour during a criminal case in 2005. But now, he says he's ready to admit the truth about what happened.

SOUNDCLIP

GK: The family points out to us that your story's changed after Michael's death is what they're saying. They also believe that if he were still alive, you all would not be sitting here talking to us right now. What do you say to that?

WR: Well, I mean it's hard to speculate as to what would be the situation if Michael's still alive. I guess if I could speculate, if Michael was still alive and all of the other rest of the details of my life were the same, meaning I became a father, right? And I went through the same process that I did of this realization and going through the healing process. My belief is that we'd still be doing this, of course, some details may be different.

GK: James.

JS: Yeah, I don't know? Would I've taken this to my grave? I certainly planned on doing that.

GK: In the documentary, you said you planned on taking it to your grave.

JS: Right, so I had no expectations of ever telling anyone. So you know if he was still alive, yeah, I don't know maybe I would have taken it to my grave.

KG: Wade Robson and James Safechuk, speaking with Gayle King on the CBS morning show earlier today. They are featured in Leaving Neverland, a new HBO documentary about Michael Jackson, in which they accuse the pop star of years of ongoing sexual abuse. The Jackson family and estate dispute their claims, and have filed a 100-million-dollar lawsuit against HBO. And Mr. Jackson himself denied any allegations of abuse throughout his life.

[Music: Piano]

B.C. lottery

KG: A couple from Merritt, B.C. just picked up their new Ford truck — and a giant cheque. Last Friday, Rowena Inyallie and George Munro hit the Lotto Max jackpot -- and won 25-point-9 million dollars. They were both in Kamloops yesterday to receive their cheque — and talk about what it feels like to be millionaires.

SOUNDCLIP

GEORGE MUNRO: It was Saturday, and me and the wife we're gonna go up and you know go have some fun. She's going to go to the bank. I went into the Delphi bar and pub. I know it sounds bad. It was Saturday. It was my day off. I had two tickets. We had two tickets. I scanned the first one, and it was not a winner. Sorry, not a winner. So then I got my second ticket. I scanned it. The numbers went by. I said holy cow, I think I won twenty-five thousand bucks. So I was happy with that. So I scanned it again. But this time I was right close. And I was like that's way more that twenty-five thousand bucks. My wife was just coming from the bank. So I rushed outside, and I'm like smiling obviously. And she said it a few times I said we'll go check. And sure enough, it was the winner.

ROWENA INYALLIE: I start crying and shaking. And grabbed my friend, and I was like almost shaking her too. We purchased our truck last night. And thanks to Ford dealers, they were able to give us our truck everything we wanted on it. It was our dream to have a 350.

GM: And I always wanted a sports car. So we're getting a Ford Shelby. After that I don't know — sky’s the limit, I guess.

RI: Yeah, sky’s the limit.

KG: Rowena Inyallie and George Munro speaking in Kamloops yesterday while picking up their Lotto Max jackpot.

[Music: Orchestral]

Kenya fires

Guest: Bobby Neptune

KG: The side of Mt. Kenya is ablaze. Wildfires have been burning there for six days, threatening the largest natural bamboo forests in Africa. Part of the local fresh water supply is also in danger. And the country has limited resources to fight fires that big. Bobby Neptune is a photographer who has been on the ground in Kenya capturing images of the fire and the local people fighting it. We reached him in Nairobi.

HM: Bobby, I understand you just got home after a week on the mountain. First of all, how are you doing?

BOBBY NEPTUNE: Yeah, doing fine. You know the fires are still very, very big, and there's definitely a sense of urgency on the mountain at the moment. But yeah, I'm doing fine.

HM: What was it like to be up there?

BN: You know, it's quite hot — the conditions out there are very windy. These fires are at twelve thousand feet, so they're very, very high up on the moorlands of Mount Kenya. And the fire is quite unpredictable with those winds. They can go from zero to anywhere around 75 miles an hour in the snap of a finger. And so for me photographing the fires, you know we have to get close to them. So you know I just got home just a few minutes ago, and I'm covered in soot and have some burns on my arm and the fire. And you know it's an eerie landscape there. On one side of the fire line, you have these beautiful, amazing green moorlands — which on any given day are filled with wildlife, zebra, elephants, eland. And on the other side of that fire line, there's sort of this charred, other-worldly landscape that's quite difficult to describe. But it's definitely a very, very clear line.

HM: The photos appear to show some pretty high walls of flame. What did you see there?

BN: The flames that we're looking at, you know they range anywhere from one to two feet at some of the lower grass fires. But as those fires would move across some of those shrubs, you would see them in in excess of 25 feet to 30 feet at times. And so those fires are very, very hot and difficult to approach — especially you know you've got a group of firefighters and mostly people from the surrounding communities who are just people who live on the side of the mountain, who have rallied around and said we're gonna go fight these fires. It's very difficult for them to approach those flames with the equipment that they have.

HM: What about the air quality, what's that like?

BN: You know, the winds are actually keeping the air quality reasonably fine on the fighting side of the line. So once you step into that char, the quantity of smoke is really, really dense. But because of those high winds, most of the smoke is moving across the mountain pretty quickly.

HM: Is it known how the fires got started?

BN: I would prefer not to comment on that one. The BBC is reporting marijuana. I would probably refer you towards Kenya Wildlife Service and Kenya Forest Service to get that answer.

HM: How do most of the people who live in the area interact on this land?

BN: Yeah, so Mount Kenya is central Kenya's main water tower. So this mountain is incredibly, incredibly important. It's what keeps all of the rainfall coming down the mountain year along. So these drainages which have fish, feed wildlife, you know also provide massive tourism dollars onto the mountain. These communities depend on this mountain tremendously.

HM: You mentioned that local people have taken on the firefighting effort, and that they're not very well-equipped. Describe what it is that they're doing?

BN: Yeah, so on the fire lines there are right now most of the firefighters who are out there currently are just villagers from the community, who have stepped up and said we're gonna go fight these fires. We understand the scope and scale of it and how it will affect our community eventually. And so they they've stepped up, and my hats go off to them. There are a number of Kenya Wildlife Service fire technicians, Kenya Forest Service technicians, as well as technicians from Mount Kenya Trust and other private charities which are putting support into the fire. But a number of the people fighting them are just people from the local communities.

HM: What kind of tools are they using?

BN: You know that's one of the major issues — tools is one of the major issues. Kenya is not equipped to fight fires of this scale. So most of the tools which are being used are fire beaters, which are just basically a garden tool with some rubber on the end, as well as machetes using to cut fire line. So it's all it's all being done by hand at the moment. There are coming and going water drop capable aircraft. But a majority of the firefighting is being done by hand on the ground.

HM: What are you finding in the way of the morale for these people for whom the land is so important?

BN: On those fire lines, the time that I spent with those firefighters, the morale is actually quite high. There's a number of smiles, there's joking, and there's some fun laughing that's going on. And morale is actually quite high. And I would chalk that up to the fact that these people care about the mountains so tremendously. It means such a great deal for them. Nobody is out there just to be out there. These are people who care tremendously about the mountain, about the communities, about the wildlife the forest that are there. They're doing as good of a job as they can with the limited resources that they have.

HM: When you speak of wildlife, I'm reading that a number of animals have been known to have been killed by this fire. In terms of the local ecosystem, the neighbouring brush and forests, what's the risk here if these aren't contained?

BN: In equatorial Africa, we're already struggling with a polarizing landscape. So we're moving from predictable rainfalls into more flooding and more severe droughts. That's sort of the direction that central and equatorial Africa is going at the moment due to climate change. And these sort of events only end up moving the spectrums even further. And so the reality for wildlife is all that micro fauna and flora are you know dying at this point. If the forest goes, that's a major, major issue. And so the fire crews have been dispatched kind of right there on the edge of those forest trying to maintain that. But it's a difficult task for sure.

HM: Bobby, thank you very much for telling us what you've seen. We appreciate it.

BN: Sure. Definitely.

HM: Ok, bye-bye.

KG: Bobby Neptune is a photographer who was on the ground in Kenya this week. He's in Nairobi. The BBC is reporting that the fires were caused by illegal marijuana farmers clearing the area to plant — but those reports are unconfirmed. Kenya Forest Service chief conservator Monica Kalenda told the Daily Nation that the causes of the fire are still being investigated.

[Music: Indie rock]

Rick Mercer

KG: For decades, comedian Rick Mercer has made Canadians laugh -- mostly at our politicians. The bad news is, as you know, his show, "Rick Mercer Report", ended last year — so we can't tune in to watch him make this extremely unfunny week hilarious. The good news is that, today, it was announced that he'll be honoured with the Governor General's Performing Arts Award for Lifetime Artistic Achievement. Before he had his own show, Mr. Mercer was part of the ensemble on "This Hour Has 22 Minutes". Here's one of his most memorable bits from that show. From 2000, Rick Mercer mocking a proposal from then-Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day.

SOUNDCLIP

RICK MERCER: As we all know, Canada is a land of many different types of people. However, as Canadians, I think there is one thing we can all agree on. And that's this: that Stockwell Day has lots of good ideas. I think his best idea is his proposed referendum legislation. Basically, if any group of Canadians presents a petition with 350,000 names on it, or three per cent of the electorate, and the Alliance forms the government, they will hold a referendum. Now sure, critics point out that this type of legislation will tear the country apart. That it will drive the federal government into bankruptcy, as we face referendum after referendum. Well, while this may be true, i does not change the simple fact: that if Stockwell does it, we here at “22 Minutes” would enjoy it. So in preparation for an Alliance majority government, we are asking our viewers to take part in an exercise in democracy. We are asking you to sign a petition that you will find at 22minutes.com. There are one million Canadians watching right now. All we need is 350,000 signatures. If we make it, the “22 Minute” referendum will become a reality. Now the petition simply states we demand that the government of Canada force Stockwell Day to change his first name to Doris. Now, any time there is a national referendum yes, It costs about. 150 million dollars, but I think I speak for all taxpayers when I say it's worth every penny. So please log on now, or tomorrow at work — especially if you work for the government. And let's help for Stockwell Day to change his name to Doris Day. Why you may ask? Cause it'll be fun.

KG: That petition went on to get 370 thousand signatures. Unfortunately for Mr. Mercer, Mr. Day did not agree to change his name. But Mr. Mercer's career wasn't all about making fun of Canadian politicians. He also commented seriously on other subjects. Here he is, with a 2011 "rant" from the "Rick Mercer Report".

SOUNDCLIP

RM: Every year in this country, 300 kids take their own lives. It is a mind-boggling number. And this past week one of those kids was Jamie Hubley. He was 15, he was depressed, and he happened to be gay. And because this is 2011, we just don't read about a kid like Jamie; we can Google him. And then the next thing you know, you're sitting at home watching his videos on YouTube, and he was gay all right. He was a great big, goofy gay kid, singing Lady Gaga on the Internet. And as an adult, you look at that you go you know what that kid's going places. But for some reason some kids they looked at that and they attacked. And now he's gone. And because this story is all too familiar, we know exactly what's going to happen next. Grief counselors will go into the school, as they should. But what about the old fashioned assembly? You know where the cops show up, and there's hell to pay, and they find out who's responsible. You know like when the lunchroom is vandalized. Because the kids who bully this boy, they know who they are. And more importantly, other kids know who they are. It's no longer good enough for us to tell kids who are different that it's going to get better. We have to make it better now. That's every single one of us — every teacher, every student, every adult has to step up to the plate. And that's gay adults too because I know gay cops, soldiers, athletes, cabinet ministers a lot of us do. But the problem is adults we don't need role models; kids do. So if you're gay and you're in public life, I'm sorry. You don't have to run around with a pride flag and bore the hell out of everyone, but you can't be invisible. Not anymore — 300 kids is 300 too many.

KG: From 2011, that was Rick Mercer. Mr. Mercer will recieve the Governor General's Performing Arts Award for Lifetime Artistic Achievement when the award gala is held in April.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

February 28, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This